Blog Stats

As Trump administration and Zionist regime continue to act outraged over Syrian army and Nazi army gassing their own innocent people – despite the fact that no evidence exists to support their ridiculous claims. They’re ignoring the fact that both US administration and the Zionist regime had used chemical weapons on their own citizens as well as on civilians in foreign lands – crimes which have been documented.

CIA declassified 1980s documents reveal that during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. US intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent supplied by the US and UK to Saddam regime.

According to FBI files made public recently, the government agency used poisonous gas at the WACO compound of the so-called Davidians Seventh Day Adventists in February 1992 – killing 86 people including 17 children.

The Jewish Army has tested chemical weapons on Palestinian civilians including children and people living in the neighboring countries. The Jewish-controlled media suppressed 2009 UN report which had accused Jewish army of conducting illegal white phosphorous missile attacks on unarmed civilians, including a UN relief compound set up to shelter and provide medical attention to Palestinian refugees during Israel’s war on Gaza Strip in 2008-09.

During both World Wars, the Western countries deployed chemical weapons on large scale. United States used chemical weapons on Iraqi civilian during the 1991 and 2003 invasions. Iraqi forces used Western-supplied mustard gas and nerve agents against Kurdish residents of Halabja, in Northern Iraq, in 1988.

During Vietnam War (1955-73) American forces not only helped South Vietnam to rain down chemical weapons on civilians and combatants alike but is thought to have dumped 20m gallons of chemicals itself.

America killed hundreds of thousands Japanese civilians with Napalm from 1944-1945.

St Louis, Missouri, is a predominantly poor and black neighborhood. For many years it was used by the US Army Chemical Corps for secret experiments to see how chemical particles dispersed in the atmosphere.

The US-NATO forces are accused of using poisonous gas against Taliban fighters in 2009.

Tear gas is internationally recognized as a chemical weapon. But US police have used it to suppress protests for decades. It was used on Occupy Wall Streetprotesters in 2011. Recently, though the vast majority of protesters at the Dakota Access Pipeline demonstrations in Standing Rock, North Dakota, were peaceful, law enforcement sprayed them with the chemical weapon, anyway.

It’s worth noting the US renounced chemical weapons in 1969 and ratified the Biological Weapons Convention in 1975.

Following the wave of destruction bestowed upon the world by the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney duo, Barack Obama and Joe Biden swept into power on the promise that they would address the American people’s desperate plea for ‘change’.

But despite securing a Nobel Peace Prize shortly after setting foot in the White House, Obama’s eight years at the helm can be summed up – both in terms of domestic and foreign policy – as being even more destructive than those of his predecessors.

The Nobel Prize, much like everything else that has to do with Obama, was more about the expectations of those who were awarding it rather than the achievements of its recipient.

From democracy to plutocracy

Obama’s biggest achievement on the domestic scene was undoubtedly his ability to transform American society from a democracy to a plutocracy.

It is important to note that despite the presence of plutocratic rule in the US for some time, it was the Obama administration that publicly adopted and cemented this phenomenon.

One example is Obama’s approach to the US mortgage crisis, which sparked a worldwide economic meltdown in 2008. And while his administration cannot be blamed for initiating the crisis, Obama is guilty of failing to punish the perpetrators.

The progressive publication, The Huffington Post, generally supportive of the Obama administration, reported in 2011 that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development carried out ‘confidential’ federal audits of all major American banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial.

The findings led to the conclusion that all of these financial giants had indeed managed to swindle the Federal Government of the United States.

But Obama’s Justice Department refused to pursue, much less prosecute, a single individual involved in cheating the US taxpayers out of trillions of dollars.

In January 2012, while shielding Wall Street firms from prosecution, Obama declared that he had ordered the creation of a “special unit” to investigate mortgage fraud.

“This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans,” Obama said in his address to the nation.

However, two years later, a report by the Inspector General of the US Department of Justice revealed that the whole thing was nothing more than a lie.

“DOJ did not uniformly ensure that mortgage fraud was prioritized at a level commensurate with its public statements. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Investigative Division ranked mortgage fraud as the lowest criminal threat in its lowest crime category. Additionally, we found mortgage fraud to be a low priority, or not [even] listed as a priority, for the FBI Field Offices we visited… many Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) informed us about underreporting and misclassification of mortgage fraud cases,” the report stated.

In fact, one of the more interesting aspects of Obama’s legacy is that he managed to record the lowest rate of white-collar crime prosecutions in US history.

Two pieces of information made public – much to the detriment of the Obama administration – help to explain the behavior of the US president.

The first is a 2009 secret meeting at the White House between the top executives of the bailed-out financial firms and Obama himself.

Citing an anonymous source, POLITICO reported that Obama told his guests, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

More importantly, revelations by the WikiLeaks dump of John Podesta’s emails show that Citigroup decided much of the staffing for leading cabinet positions in the Obama administration.

Even before Obama was elected in 2008, the Wall Street bank submitted a list of its preferred candidates for cabinet positions, which corresponded almost exactly to the eventual composition of the Obama Administration.

Alternative work

Data released by Bloomberg further strengthens the argument that the US has been transformed into a plutocracy, showing that the richest 1% of Americans increased their earnings by as much in 93% in 2010. Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and poor grew to its highest level in four decades in 2011, even surpassing the recognized plutocracies of Uganda and Kazakhstan.

A recent report by Harvard and Princeton economists, Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, reveals that the proportion of American workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era. Alternative, or “gig” work refers to temporary or freelance employment and is generally unsteady, without a fixed paycheck and with virtually no benefits.

Krueger, who served as the top White House economist under Obama said,
“we find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category… and over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.”

In other words, the US government has been releasing ‘acceptable’ unemployment figures by creating 10 million jobs that had noting to do with traditional nine-to-five employment.

As such, it becomes evident that Obama’s so-called ‘economic recovery’ has strictly benefited the richest 1% of Americans.

The policy of endless wars

In terms of foreign policy, the biggest achievement of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was his ability to spend every single day of his eight-year mandate in a state of war.

During those eight years, Obama signed off on American military action in no less than seven countries.

He also drastically increased worldwide drone attacks, outdoing his predecessor George W. Bush, who used to refer to himself as the ‘war president’.

During 2016 alone, these attacks resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians in five different countries. The reason that this figure is not higher is because the Obama administration classified all men above the age of 18 as enemy combatants.

But these are just statistics for conflicts known to the public. American military clandestine units are currently involved in operations in 138 countries worldwide.

Aside from the destruction of Libya, Syria and Yemen, the Obama administration also forced the collapse of Ukraine. Then came the sanctions against Russia, turning Eastern Europe into a NATO military base, and eventually the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats at a time when it became clear that Obama would be succeeded by a man that wants to improve relations with Moscow.

The administration also takes the lion’s share of the blame for the sea of refugees that flooded Europe, most of whom came from the seven countries that Obama has attacked over the last eight years.

Obama’s tenure also paved the way for the unprecedented expansion of US clandestine services, which started spying on both American and foreign citizens, including enemies and allies alike.

When this information was leaked to the public, not a single politician or intelligence operative was called to account. On the contrary, the Obama administration responded by declaring a war on whistleblowers and setting up the ‘Insider Threat Program,’ which forces federal agency employees to spy on their colleagues.

During his farewell speech, Obama defended his legacy and, perhaps not surprisingly, steered clear of most of the aforementioned issues. But he did cite both the rapprochement with Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal as the central achievements of his administration.

These assertions are slightly more difficult to challenge. The deal hammered out between the P5+1 group of countries and Iranian officials in 2015 will go down in history as a major feat of diplomacy, which can never truly be shattered in its entirety by those who succeed Obama.

But perhaps Obama will be better remembered for overseeing an era of divisive, uncompromising and coercive policies that forced the transformation of the US political establishment – and hopefully real change.

Anti-Trump protest movements are envisaged alongside a campaign to disrupt.

While there are “genuine protests” –e.g. those led by the Answer Coalition and Workers World–, the main thrust is coming from an “engineered” campaign supported and financed by the Neocons, which is largely intent upon disrupting the inauguration and destabilizing the Trump presidency. Several progressive organizations have nonetheless joined the bandwagon of the #Disruptj20 campaign.

The protest movement in fact started on the evening of November 8 prior to the announcement of the election results. The organizers of this movement are acting on behalf of powerful elite interests. People are misled: the protests are not being led on behalf of the genuine concerns of Americans who oppose Trump’s right wing racist agenda.

The engineered protest ops are coordinated with a relentless propaganda campaign led by the mainstream media, which includes accusations of high treason and sedition directed against Donald Trump, who is portrayed as an instrument of the Kremlin.

Even prior to the November 8 elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic, Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.

Vanity Fair November 1 2016

The Atlantic October 8 2016

In the wake of the Grand Electors’ Vote (in favour of Trump) and Obama’s renewed sanctions against Moscow, the accusations of treason directed against Donald Trump have gone into high gear. Unprecedented in US history, a movement to impeach an elected president has been launched prior to his accession to the White House.

The objective of the engineered protests which has the support of US intelligence is to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.

Is it a conspiracy? The various components of this operation are carefully coordinated. All the essential features of an American-style “color revolution” with the intent to destabilize an incoming president are there.

Background: What is a Color Revolution?

Before proceeding further, let us focus on the nature and historical origins of the “color revolutions” used as a means to triggering “regime change”, which have emerged in a large number of countries in the course of the last decade.

The “color revolution” is a US intelligence operation which consists in covertly supporting as well as infiltrating protest movements with a view to triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy template. The objective of a “color revolution” is to manipulate elections, create violence, foment social unrest and use the protest movement to topple an existing government. The ultimate foreign policy goal is to instate a compliant pro-US government (or “puppet regime”).

Engineered protest movements are carefully planned. They are intelligence ops. They use non-governmental organizations to recruit protesters.

History: “The Revolution Business” and “Regime Change”

In August 1999, the CIA set up a training program for a Serbian NGO entitled OTPOR which subsequently played a key role in the engineered protest movement conducive to the downfall of president Slobodan Milosevic. A few years later, OTPOR established a training and strategizing outfit entitled The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS). CANVAS became a consulting outfit specializing in “Revolution” on contract to the CIA.

CANVAS was set up by the CIA as “an International network of trainers and consultants” involved in the “Revolution Business”. Funded by Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well private corporate foundations. CANVAS constitutes a consulting outfit, advising and training US sponsored opposition groups in more than 40 countries. In this regard, OTPOR played a key role in fomenting the mass uprisings during the Arab Spring in Egypt in 2011. What appeared to be a spontaneous democratization process was a carefully planned intelligence operation. View video below.

How does this relate to the coordinated operation to undermine the Trump presidency?

What is at stake is a “color revolution” Made in America which is marked by fundamental rivalries within the US establishment, namely the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency.

The OTPOR-CANVAS-CIA model is nonetheless relevant. Several foundations involved in funding color revolutions internationally are involved in funding the anti-Trump campaign.

Moreover, while CANVAS’ mandate is to oversee “color revolutions” internationally, it also has links with a number of NGOs currently involved in the anti-Trump campaign including The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWSlaunched by Adbusters was funded via the Tides Foundation which in turn is funded by a number of corporate foundations and charities, including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known to have historical links to US intelligence.

It is worth noting that the raised fist logo first launched by OTPOR in 1999 as a symbol of CIA sponsored color revolutions (including Egypt during the Arab Spring), also constitutes the symbol of several organizations involved in the anti-Trump engineered protest movement.

The Inauguration Disrupt Campaign: Disruptj20

Several hundred thousand Trump supporters will be present in Washington DC on January 20th. D.C.’s Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management estimates that there will be between 800,000 – 900,000 people in DC for the event, including Trump supporter and protesters.

Will there be clashes between both sides?

The Disruptj20.org campaign is calling for the disruption of the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:

#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective of experienced local activists and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.

The actions contemplated include “setting up blockades at checkpoints to prevent people from gaining access to the inauguration proceedings”. A spokesperson confirmed that #DisruptJ20 campaign would be “creating a framework to support mass protests and direct action to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump” .

This could potentially lead to violent clashes with tens of thousands of Trump supporters, which is the ultimate objective of an engineered “Color Revolution” style protest movement supported covertly by US intelligence. It’s part of the logic of a “color revolution” scenario (e.g. Kiev-Maidan, Cairo-Tahir Square) which is predicated on triggering confrontation and urban violence.

Is the Disrupt Campaign committed to deliberately staging violence on January 20?

“The idea is to shut down access to the parade as much as possible and slowing it down to a crawl,” said DisruptJ20 organizer Legba Carrefour. “Then there’s the broader goal of shutting down the entire city around it and creating a sense of paralysis that creates a headline that says, ‘Trump’s inauguration creates chaos.’” (NBC, January 17, 2017)

The organizers of the engineered protest movement are funded by powerful corporate interests, they are supported by US intelligence. The objective is not to undermine the racist right wing agenda of Donald Trump as conveyed in the video below. Quite the opposite.

Yeah, once again, I am going to engage in that silly business when I pretend that my blog is a “respectable media outlet” and, as such, to give myself the proper credibility and gravitas I have to copy Time magazine and others and chose a “man of the year”. This year, however, this truly was a no-brainer. The 2016 “man of the year” is, of course, the American “basket of deplorables“.

No, not Trump. Trump might well be Time’s man of the year, but as far as I am concerned, this man is just a promise, and he will remain that to me until he delivers on what he has promised the American voter. No, the real heroes of our story today are, of course, the millions who dared defy the Empire and who voted for Trump.

The American voter who inflicted the worst bitch-slap to the US propaganda machine (aka “the mainstream media”) ever. What happened in this election is nothing short of the biggest defeat in the history of propaganda.

As an ex Cold Warrior who studied the Soviet media for a living, I can say that the US media nowadays is infinitely worse in its willingness to not only lie, but condescendingly deny the obvious, show a total lack of conscience or even basic decency. US presstitutes give prostitution a bad name.

The American voter was subjected to the most intensive (and, probably, expensive) propaganda barrage in history. Keep in mind that in overtly dictatorial regimes most adults realize that they are being lied to. In the USA, every American is brainwashed from birth to believe that the US press is the best and freest in the world and that the US democracy is also the best and freest in the world. To vote for Trump, the US voter had to go against every single sacred dogma the US Empire has tried so hard to indoctrinate its subject in. This is far harder than one would think. Those interested in this topic can consult this article on the Asch conformity experiments or Milgram’s famous experiment on obedience and authority.

This is what the Empire has done to America

Furthermore, the psychological pressure was so intense that I can testify to the fact that many American were actually *afraid* of admitting that they would vote for Trump. The atmosphere of rabid hatred against Trump and total intolerance and demonization of his supporters was such, that many Americans decided to hide their preference for Trump. Some even pretended that they would vote for Hillary. I know people who even lied to their own family members.

And, predictably, in the typical Neocon-style, as soon as it became clear that Trump would be elected, the US presstitutes began pouring out their hatred on the American people. If in Britain only the old people could vote for the Brexit, in the USA all the Trump voters were described as poorly educated racists (“racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” to quote Hillary). I don’t recall ever seeing such an outpouring of hatred towards an entire nation (except, maybe, the typical hatred the Russian liberals have for the “common” Russian people).

But, apparently, the American people have had too much lies told to them. From the pseudo-patriotic ramblings of Dubya to the endless list of promises betrayed by Obama – the “common” folks whom Hillary referred to as the “basket deplorables” finally fought back the only way they could – they voted not only for Trump and against Hillary, but also against the regime, the polity, the power structure and the 1%ers who control it.

The main consequence of this vote will probably not be an amazing Trump presidency (I have the greatest reservations about the man and his entourage) but the fact that yet again the very legitimacy of the US political system has been discredited.

Think about it: thanks to the “Occupy Wall Street” movement it has become mainstream public knowledge that the USA are run by about 1% of its population (in reality it is far less than 1%, but nevermind that). So far from being a regime “of the people, for the people and by the people” we know all know that it is a regime “of the 1%ers, for the 1%ers and by the 1%ers”. Strike one. With the Trump election, we know also see that the USA is run by a bizarre cocktail of minorities who only have one thing in common: their hatred of the majority. Strike two. And, last but not least, it is now also clear that the US media is the most obnoxious, immoral and arrogant propaganda machine in world history. Strike three.

Where does this leave the Empire? As a joke or as an abomination. Probably a mix of both.

How about the USA themselves? They are clearly an occupied country, occupied not by an external invading force, but by an internal enemy who subjugated the USA to its own alien agenda and worldview.

As for the American people, at least the “basket of deplorables” they are now the objective allies of all the other nations on the planet who struggle to free themselves from the yoke of the AngloZionist Empire.

By voting against the Empire the American people have sent a powerful message to the rest of the world “not in my name”. In Russia, this message was received with outright enthusiasm by the people even if experts were mostly much more cautious. I have always said that there the “other West”, the West of the regular people who do not support what their rulers do, but who are unable to meaningfully oppose it. The vote against Hillary showed the world that the American people don’t want an Empire, all they want is make *America* (i.e. the USA, as opposed to world Empire) great again.

Oh, I know, I already see the trend in Trump nominations. And yes, believe me, I am extremely skeptical about all this. But none of that healthy skepticism makes any difference to the fact that the vote against Hillary and the AngloZionist 1% rulers of the USA was a seminal, beautiful, liberating and heroic moment in for not just the USA, but for the rest of the planet too (with Hillary, we were all heading for a nuclear war with Russia).

The way the American “basket of deplorables” defied their oppressors was nothing short of beautiful. And this is why the American “basket of deplorables” is my “man” of the year 2016.

The Saker

PS: for all those who will get upset at my use of the word “American”, I have just added the following paragraph to my “terminology” page:

Addendum: American. I guess I should also explain why I do use the word “American” when the correct word would be “USAn” or “United Statesian” or something equally ugly. Well, precisely: these are ugly. Alas, there is no equivalent in English to the Spanish “Estadounidense“. The same thing for Russian which also lacks such a word and uses “Amerikanets/Amerikanskii” instead. Okay, I know. the USA is a small subsection of the Americas and Americans are obnoxious (and ignorant) for calling themselves “Americans”. But, in truth, “USAns” are “Americans” since they live in the Americas, it’s just the implied exclusion of the others from that category which is so irritating. So, anyway, I apologize for this surrender to modern-speak but I just don’t have the courage to fight this losing battle and, frankly, I have bigger fish to fry. But yeah – I am therefore guilty as charged 🙂

Except for short-lived Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, America hasn’t seen sustained street protests since the largely inner city civil rights movement and Vietnam War years, notably on college campuses nationwide – memorable because they poved committed activism works.

Peaking in 1968, anti-war rage got Lyndon Johnson, in a March 31 address, to announce “I shall not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

Despite multiple US war theaters since the Clintons raped Yugoslavia, street protests for peace are notably absent.

Endless US wars of aggression rage. Most Americans barely notice, indifferent about mass slaughter and destruction, mindless about their tax dollars enriching Wall Street and war-profiteers, while social justice increasingly goes begging.

Instead of demanding peace, equity and justice, they’re indifferent about US imperial rampaging, waging war on humanity at home and abroad.

Following Trump’s surprise electoral triumph, thousands took to the streets in US cities nationwide, mostly students and other youths.

Outside New York’s Trump International Hotel, they shouted “Not my president!” “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Donald Trump has got to go!” “Trump makes America hate!” “Impeach Trump” – even though he won’t be inaugurated until January 20, and as a businessman, has no public record, unlike Hillary’s unaccountable high crimes.

In Chicago near where I live, hundreds protested near Trump Tower, then marched through the city’s loop. Smaller groups blocked traffic on Lake Shore Drive near my downtown residence.

Most Americans are deplorably out-of-touch and uninformed, relying largely on television propaganda for news and misinformation.

Trump isn’t the problem. Nationwide protests should rage against America’s system – a one-party state with two right wings, exclusively serving wealth, power and privilege, matter who holds top posts.

The world’s richest nation was thirdworldized. Unprecedented wealth extremes exist, Republicans and Democrats in lockstep on issues mattering most. A single major difference separates them.

Hillary as president would risk nuclear war on Russia, perhaps followed against China and Iran. Trump would rather exploit planet earth for profit than destroy it, his business interests along with it.

Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Voters have no say whatever. Powerful interests control everything – sacrificing social justice to use national resources for warmaking and enriching corporate predators, at the expense of governance of, by and for everyone equitably.

Instead of resisting an increasingly tyrannical system, a hugely unjust one, energy is wasted against a president-elect with no public record. So it’s unknown how he’ll govern until he’s sworn in over two months from now.

America’s dirty system persists because activism doesn’t challenge it, energy wasted against Trump, instead of the dirty system and deep state dark forces running it.

March 12, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar – NEO) When globe-trotting journalist and keen geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar refers to the United States as the “Empire of Chaos,” it may seem like hyperbole. But upon looking deeper at both Escobar’s coverage and the United States’ foreign policy itself, it is perhaps the most accurate title for this political entity and its means of operation, perhaps more apt than the name “The United States” itself.

In the wake of World War II, the US and its allies set out upon the reclamation of the West’s lost colonies, many of which took advantage of Europe’s infighting to either establish independence from their long-standing colonial masters, or begin the conflicts that would inevitably lead toward independence.

Perhaps the most well-known of these conflicts was the Vietnam War. The United States would involve itself in the dissolution of French Indochina at the cost of some 4 million lives in a conflict that would embroil not only Vietnam, but much of Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. Covert coups and brutal insurgencies were underwritten by Washington across the planet, from the Middle East to South and Central America. And while this too seems chaotic, the goal always seemed to be the destruction of independent states, and the creation of viable client states.

These client states included the Shah’s Iran, Saudi Arabia, much, if not all of Western Europe and even to varying degrees, some of the enduring autocracies of the Middle East until for one reason or another they fell out of favor with Washington. The idea was to create an international order built upon the concept of globalization.

Globalization was meant to be a system of vast interdependencies governed by international institutions created by and for the United States and more specifically, the special interests that have long since co-opted America’s destiny.

However, the concept of globalization seems to have neglected any anticipation for rapid technological advances in both terms of information technology and manufacturing. There are very few real interdependencies left to stitch this vision of globalization together with many of them being artificially maintained at increasing costs. The idea of using sanctions to ‘starve’ a nation by isolating it from this global order has been exposed as more or less impotent by nations like Iran and North Korea who have sustained themselves for decades despite everything besides air and gravity being denied to them.

Indeed, nations understand the value of self-sufficiency in both terms of politics and the basic necessities which constitute any state’s infrastructure. Russia’s recent encounter with Western sanctions has caused it to look not only eastward, but inward, to secure its interests and to transcend sanctions wholly dependent on the concept of “globalization.”

As this “carrot and stick” method of working the world into Wall Street and Washington’s international order becomes less effective, some of the uglier and less elegant tools of the West’s geopolitical trade have taken a more prominent role on the global stage. It appears that if the West cannot rule this international order built upon the concepts of globalization, it will rule an international order built on chaos.

The Empire of Chaos

The unipolar geopolitical concepts that underpin globalization have eroded greatly. Nations no longer have to pick between an existence of lonely isolation and socioeconomic atrophy or subordination within this international order. Instead, they can pick to associate with the growing community of what the West calls “rogue states.” So large has this list grown that the US may soon find itself and Western Europe the last remaining members of its failed international order.

The real danger for an aspiring global empire is to find a planet that has suddenly begun to move in tandem out from under its shadow and moving on without them in relative peace and prosperity. To prevent this from happening we have seen a concerted effort focused on disrupting and destroying this emerging multi-polar world.

In Europe, the refugee crisis is being used to polarize European society and allow governments to increase their power domestically and further justify wars abroad. Along Western Europe’s borders, facing Russia, a relative stable balancing act maintained by former Soviet territories attempting to benefit from associating with both East and West has been turned into outright war.

Throughout North Africa and the Middle East, any nation that even so much as slightly resembles a sovereign nation state has been undermined and attempts to violently overthrow them pursued. The goal is no longer to create viable client states, but rather to Balkanize and leave them in ruins so as to never contest Western ambitions in the region again. This can be observed clearly in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen where none of the groups backed by the US and its allies could ever realistically run a functioning nation state.

And in Asia, in state after state, those leading political parties marked by Washington for future client status are being removed from power and their leaders, long backed by the US, being either exiled or jailed.

Where these political gambits are crumbling, a steady stream of violence perpetrated by terrorist groups not even indigenous to the region has begun to build in strength.

Divide and Conquer

Divide and conquer is a geopolitical maxim that has served as empire’s bread and butter since the beginning of recorded human civilization. When the British could not subdue a targeted territory just beyond the grasp of its empire, it would divide and destroy them. A ruined nation that can be plundered and trampled may not be as desirable as a loyal client state run by a British viceroy, but it is better than a pocket of national sovereignty serving as an example for others of the merits of resisting “Great Britain.”

Today, it is clear that the idea of creating a client state in the midst of a general public increasingly aware of the features and fixations of modern empire is becoming ever more tenuous. Such client states are less likely to be accepted by a local population who, with minimum effort, can put up significant resistance against even the best funded of foreign proxies.

Globalism required more and more illusions to convince people they needed a global system controlled by far-off special interests to do what can now be done through advances in technology nationally and even locally. Now all that is left is the sowing of chaos to prevent people from leveraging this technology nationally and locally, to keep them divided and distracted for as long as possible, to perpetuate the West’s global hegemony for as long as possible.

Moving Beyond the Chaos

An empire built on chaos is not meant to last. Chaos, like the international order of globalization that preceded it, requires illusions and manipulation to perpetuate itself. Unfortunately, stirring chaos among a population is a lot easier than convincing them of the non-existent interdependencies of globalization.

Nations leading the way out of this chaos include those who have suffered the most because of it. Their leaders have realized the necessity of closing off the vectors through which the West feeds this chaos within their borders, which include socioeconomic disparity, foreign-funded propaganda, foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and of course extremist groups used to carry out the actual terrorism and agitation required to create the worst sort of chaos.

Russia and China in particular have been busy creating alternatives not only for the remnants of the West’s globalization racket, but alternatives for the unipolar world the West was trying to create. They are both looking within and across their borders to create a patchwork of nations ready to move beyond the chaos and toward a more widespread balance of power.

By in turn, placing sanctions on the West, Russia is forcing itself to not only produce raw materials for export, but to become a more capable producer of finished goods. By doing so, Russia has begun a process that turns America’s sanctions game back onto itself. While many believe Washington drives American policy, it is unrealistic to discount Wall Street’s role. By cutting the corporations trading on Wall Street down to size, one cuts down their unwarranted power they wield on the global stage.

Nations choosing to trade rather than being forced to because of an ungainly system of globalization ensures that any given people have more control over not only what they buy and sell, but how and where their natural resources are used.

With the Empire of Chaos in terminal decline and with a new multi-polar order emerging, the only question left to ask is; will chaos spread and destroy faster than this new multi-polar order can be built? It is certainly a close race pushing both sides into acts of increasingly unimaginable confrontation.

[ Ed. note – I certainly would not describe myself as a Republican. I think both parties, Republican and Democrat, are rotten to the core and have sold out the people of this country, but it is rather curious that the overwhelming majority of supporters of Rand Paul’s bill requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve (see a full list of co-sponsors here ) are Republicans, while the overwhelming majority of those who voted against it were Democrats. Paul introduced the bill last year. It came up for a preliminary vote in the Senate today. The legislation failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. The vote tally was 53 ayes-44 nays. Bernie Sanders voted with the Republicans. Ted Cruz did not show up to vote at all. The “hope and change” Obama administration and the Federal Reserve itself were on the same side–both opposed the legislation. ]

Senate Democrats blocked a vote Tuesday on legislation from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have required an audit and greater transparency on monetary policy-making from theFederal Reserve, the powerful central banking system that sets interest rates and manages the money supply.

The bill won near-unanimous Republican support and votes from Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, but fell shortof the 60 votes needed for consideration.

Measures to audit the Fed have met mixed success since the 2008 economic crisis. The House passed similar measures in 2012 and 2015 and the Government Accountability Office gained some oversight powers and performedan auditpursuant to the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act.

Sen. Paul’s measurewould haveauthorized the GAO to review more information as part of an audit, but opponents said that would give lawmakers too much information and power to exercise oversight.

“We’ll see many members of Congress pushing the Fed to side with the bondholders and Wall Street on combating inflation rather than siding with main street and small businesses and workers in dealing with unemployment,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who spoke against the bill.

Sen. Paul used similar arguments, however, saying his proposal would in fact benefit the working class to the disadvantage of well-connected bankers, as low inflation and low interest rates have hurt people who aren’t at the top of the economic food chain.

“There is a revolving door between the Fed, the Treasury and Wall Street — a revolving door in a building all-too-eager to enrich big banks and asset holders at the expense of everyone else,” he said. “I think that it’s about time we pull back the curtain to uncover this cloak of secrecy once and for all.”

In advance of the vote, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernankewrotein a Brookings Institution blog post that “[t]he principal effect of the bill would be to make meeting-by-meeting monetary policy decisions subject to Congressional review” and that too much transparency would allow for “political interventions in monetary policy decisions [that] would not lead to better results.”

Bernanke famouslywas unableto identify during a 2009 congressional hearing the foreign banks that received $500 billion during the economic crisis. “Congress approved it in the Federal Reserve Act [of 1913],” he explained, describing why congressional approval was unnecessary for the loans.

Though the Senate blocked the measure, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (Rand’s father) tells U.S. News the vote “was a tremendous success” because it builds momentum. “We really never expected to overcome cloture,” he says.